July 18, 1969
( A meel-ing of the Planning and Development Committee was held in Committee Room ^2, Second Floor, City Hall, at 2:00 P. M., Friday, July 18, 1969.
Committee members present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman i£ Q. V. Williamson 'Q ^5? Jack Summers John Flanigen
U CO Committee members absent: < LjJ c_ Gregory Griggs
c.;; Charlie Leftwich George Cotsakis Z) Hugh Pierce cr Edwin Sterne, ) Housing Authority O O Frank Etheridge ) CD The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered:
1. A. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXA.TION PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF o SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A. ANDERSON.
Charles Watkins, First National Bonk Building, was present representing the three property owners involved. Two other persons were present in support of the annexation. There was no oppsition. The staff presented a detailed report to each committee member present relative to this petition, certifying that it meets all requirements set forth by the State Enabling Legislation and applicable city ordinances, and recommended its approval. The property in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the Nth District of Fulton, formerly Fayette County, and involves 69.1 acres; of the total acreage, 46.6 acres is zoned A-1 apartments; 17 acres is zoned R-3 and a smaller C-1 tract lies in Fulton County. Mr. Gladin explained the city would be annexing this property under the zoning most closely related to the t existing county zoning, which in this instance is practically identical to the county s. [W All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon request (letters to this effect from the appropriate city departments are included in the report).
LU In answer to questioning by Mr. Summers, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come CO into the city for the services that are available and to make their land more marketable < L'J for housing and sale of apartments. e a.
13 QC o o Q:i Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Two
The committee expressed its concern about a tract immediately to the north lying in unincorporated Fulton County which, upon approval of this annexation petition, would become landlocked and asked if it could be included along with this petition.
Mr. Gladin explained this is one type of problem you incur in the petition route and it could not be legally included, but could be brought up at the next filing period in May, 1970.
The committee felt this would be highly desirable and should be encouraged at that time.
Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which v/ould become landlocked, appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner, stating they would be willing to hove their property annexed; that, however, he could not officially speak for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but AAr. Steinmetz had told him he would be willing to be annexed. In answer to questioning by Mr. Cook, Mr. Anderson stated the C-1 zoning approved by the county was done so as part of on overall Medical Complex proposal which subsequently fell through much to their regret and loss, and there is no commercial development in the area presently.
There being no further discussion, the matter was referred to Executive Session.
In Executive Session, upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.
**********
1. B. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JOHN E. LIVADITIS - GARMON ROAD.
There was no opposition present. A detailed report relative to ihis petition certifying its compliance with State Enabling Legislation and applicable city ordinances was presented to each committee member present and the staff recommended approval. The property lies in Land Lot 177 of the 17th District and is approximately 2 acres in size. Mr. Gladin stated the property is presently zoned R-1 (Residential) and would be annexed as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (lettersto this effect are a part of the report).
Mr. Livaditis was present along with his representative, Robert Smith. Mr. Smith acknowledged they were aware of the fact there are no existing sewers to the property and the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but they are hopeful of working out c an easement agreement with the adjoining property owner to connect with an outfall Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Three c
sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis' property line.
Mr. Cook called to Mr. Smith's attention a letter in the report from the Public Works Department stating that sanitary sewer is not available for the property to be annexed on Garmon Road and would not be available until approved by the property owners along this section.
Mr. Smith stated they realized securing the easement would be difficult but were still hopeful it could be worked out, and in the meantime, the septic tanks are an alternative.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Livaditis is ready to begin bricking the house and doesn't have any water; since there is a charge to top onto the water for property outside the city, he wanted to know if final approval of this petition by the Board of Aldermen would be expedited to relieve him from having to pay this charge.
A check with the Water Department indicated that if this committee approves the annexation petition today, they would not charge Mr. Livaditis to tap onto the water prior to final approval of the petition. Messrs. Smith and Livaditis expressed their appreciation to the committee. c The matter was then referred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.
**********
2. STATUS OF RECERTlFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM
Pierce Mahony explained that the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion of work for re certification of the Workable Program for a two-year period, rather than one year which has been approved in the past. He stated there have been considerable revisions in the requirements of the program for recertification, making it much more difficult to put together and committing us to a much more solid approach. He commented briefly on some of the new aspects of the program, such as the housing and relocation element and the department's anticipated participation in the HUD 701 planning program. He explained a federal requirement for participation in the 701 program is that one portion of the planning studies be a housing study; further, the personnel situation throughout the city, especially in the technical and professional level, is getting serious and the Planning Department hopes to solve some of its problems by hiring temporary personnel on 701 planning programs who could move into permanent planning vacancies as they occur.
He went on to soy these new requirements, particularly housing planning for low and moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System Minufes Planning end Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Four G for the city, because of the vorious and sundry data which can be obtained from it on immediate notice, and he urged the committee's support in implementation of this system. He presented a draft of "Workable Program Five-Year Goals" and stated the city will be committed to these goals and emphasized the need to begin considering an advance two-year budget.
Considerable discussion then ensued about the status of the Mayor's Housing Program. Colonel Jones of the Housing Resources Committee stated that the city is about halfway through the initial five-year program. He cited figures for the two and one-half year period, stating we have under construction and completed approximately 8,000 units, and we have in the pipeline more units than the original goal of 17,000. He stated, however, a lot of Atb units in planning are being lost because we do not have properly zoned locations to put them on.
Mr. Cook asked on what basis units are classified as being in the "planning stage".
Mr. Jones explained they are put in this category when a rezoning application is filed and a proposal is submitted; if the zoning is denied, they are taken out; that more zonings for this purpose have been denied than approved. He cited the loss of 21,000 O units through recent rezoning denials.
Mr. Cook stated this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department. Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referred to was done about a year ago and at that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process of preparing an up-to-date analysis of the housing program.
Mr. Cook asked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' latest housing report. After a cursory examination, Mr. Cook expressed concern about the discrepancy in figures contained in the report and those stated orally by Colonel Jones. Being a member of the Zoning Committee, he stated he was tired of charges being made that the city's housing goals were not being met because of rezoning denials as he did not believe this to be the case, and he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable to justify his position when he is unable to secure reliable statistics; that he would like statistics differentiating what percentage of the 8,000 units quoted by Colonel Jones is actually low and moderate income housing.
Mr. Kennedy stated he had very strong reservations that this percentage was quite low, that as stated by Mr. Gladin, the Planning staff is in the process of analyzing the Housing Program for the last two and one-half years and he felt this report would produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for. C ,v Minutes fUi •WSt Planning and Development Committee d July 18, 1969 - Page Five c ?3 UJ Mr. Gladin stated he realized the problems in working with the housing figures, and {/) < again this points up the need for good management procedures, which need to be UJ standardized, and the Urban Information System for quick delivery of these statistics G. over a period of time. He also commented on the need for more emphasis on the c6 city's total housing needs.
Z) D1 Mr. Cook directed the staff to prepare a letter for his signature to Colonel Jones o requesting clarification on the following: o CD 1. Is the actual number of units under construction end completed for the last two and one-half years the 8,000 oral figure given by Colonel Jones, or the 12,000 figure in his report of May 15, 1969;
?. What percentage of this figure is for low and moderate income housing;
3. The method used for determining what is low and moderate income housing, the name of the projects and the number of units in each project.
He stated that in looking at the May 15 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it would appear we are moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he had no doubt but what the program is "slipping".
With additional reference to the housing question, Mr. Mahony stated that at the last meeting of the Housing Resources Committee, the Legal Panel discussed the need for establishing a Housing Planning Agency within the city government to relieve the Housing Resources Committee members who are presently spending an inordinate amount of time doing surveys and research in the field of housing. He stated the logical a: place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Department, particularly in light of the 701 planning program; that the staff would like the committee's support; !ilit and he presented a letter for Mr. Cook's signature as Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee supporting the department's position.
Colonel Jones stated that the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but they have UJ if) not submitted a position report to Mr. Alexander and he does not know what type of < report will be submitted if and when it is, and he felt any action by this committee Ul CL on this matter would be premature ot this time. qG Mr. Gladin stated the letter does not request any final action; that it merely makes Z) a recommendation for the Housing Resources Committee to consider in making their QC recommendation. o O CD Colonel Jones stated he still felt the letter was in anticipation of something and premature. Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Six c Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Department feels very strongly about this and consequently wanted to take a positive approach, rather than waiting for a proposal from the Housing Resources Committee and reacting.
The committee unanimously approved the letter and Mr. Cook appended his signature thereto.
Referring back to the status report on the Workable Program, Mr. Gladin stated the staff hopes to present the final draft to this committee July 28, 1969 for review, and will request committee approval at a meeting on August I, 1969; It will then be forwarded to the next meeting of the Board of Aldermen where, hopefully. It will be finally approved and hand delivered that same afternoon to HUD. This will give HUD ample review time prior to the October expiration date for last year's re certification.
**********
Mr. Mahony explained the City of Mountain View, Clayton County and the City of Atlanta have common problems In the Plunkettown area which require joint study and action to solve. The following Resolution to Initiate such action was approved: -
A RESOLUTION
BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department Is presently studying the Plunkettown * neighborhood for Inclusion In the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program, and
/' WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits Into the City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and
■ WHEREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face common problems In this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. requests the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountain View to participate In a joint study designed to slove the problems of the Plunkettown neighborhood.
The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of the Federation of Southvest Clubs, a report on the first phase of the Southwest Community Study, being done for Cv studythe Federation phase was by presented graduate to planning each committee students frommember Georgia present Tech. for InformationA copy of and the nofirst ' action was requested.
ickie ******* Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Seven c
Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign Ordinance had been approved by the Zoning Committee and he anticipated submitting it to the full Board of Aldermen for approval Monday, July 21, 1969, and would like this committee's support at the Monday meeting. He further informed them we will be working toward recruiting personnel to implement the ordinance, that he has requested by letter that Mr. William H. Wofford, Building Official, and the Personnel Board prepare a joint study on such personnel needs.
**********
If Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization ■0, for Neighborhood Development) Community requesting to appear before the committee to discuss being included in the 1970 NDP program; that he felt they should have this opportunity and he would like authorization to notify them to appear at the next meeting UJ W) of the committee. < u Q. In answer to Mr. Flanigen, Mr. Gladin stated the freeway ramp question in the BOND area had not been resolved, but there are continuing discussions with Ray Nixon and the State Highway Department on the matter and he felt it could be worked out. 13 Q:: The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting. c O O DQ **********
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
**********
Approved: Respectfully submitted:
Rodney^ook, Chai rman Joanne Parks, Secretary
iM c fo
ixJ CO < UJ Q_ f(L«
AGENDA
ZONING COMMITTEE
Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969 Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall, 2;00 P.M»
#U-69-34-S - An Application for a Special Use Permit for a church to be located at MACON DRIVE, fronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Drive, S.W. beginning 316,5 feet north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W. Depth approximately 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Thelma Lois Morgan, Owner New Hope Baptist Church - Applicant Proposed Use - Church (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4
#Z-69-93-S - An Ordinance to rezone from A-l-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at the Northeast corner of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD and CLEVELAND AVENUE, S.W., fronting 200 feet on the north side of Cleveland Avenue, S.W., beginning 0 feet from the northeast corner of Old Hapeville Road. Depth 456 feet. Area 92,000 square feet. Land Lot 69, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Dr. Robert B. Hodgson, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Service Station (planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4
yi^Z-69-91-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-l-C (Apartment-Conditional) District, property located at 2965 BRCT-mS MILL ROAD, S.E., fronting 78.2 feet on the west side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 930 feet from the southwest corner of Springside Drive. Depth 1,024 feet. Area approximately 78,000 square feet. Land Lot 61, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. William T. Stanfield, Owner Robert A. Young - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 4 (planning Board, adverse r^ecomraendation)■ • #Z-69-89-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential)District to A-l (Apartment) District, property located at 3116 BROWNS ItlLL ROAD, fronting 251.5 feet on the northeast side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 500.7 feet from the northeast corner of Humphries Drive. Depth varies. Area 23.3 acres. Land Lots 35 6e 62, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ruby Allene Brooks & W. T. Atkinson, Owners B 6e H Company - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 u i i ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page" 2 July 24. 1969
#Z-69-84-S - An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at JONESBORO ROAD, fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro Road, beginning 707.06 feet from the southvjest corner of Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres. I Land Lot 34, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. The Military Corporation, Owner Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant Proposed Use - Shopping Center & Office Park (Planning Board, favorable recommendation as amended to C-l-C) WAPJ) 4
#Z-69-80-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-2 (Apartment) District, property located at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE ROAD, S.W., fronting 192 feet on the east side of Hapeville Road, S.W., beginning 389 feet from the northeast corner of Mt. Zion Road. Depth 293.4 feet. Area 56,208 square feet. Land Lot 68, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Benjamin F. Martin, Ot^ner-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4
#U-69-30-S - An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Nursery to be located at 3825 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.M., fronting 100 feet on the north side of Adamsville Drive, S.W., beginning 393.7 feet east from the corner of Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. Land Lot 14, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner Doris Strickland - Applicant Proposed Use - Day Nursery (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 #U-69-31-C - An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Nursing Home to be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S.W., fronting 252 feet on the east side of Line Road, beginning 680 feet north from the corner of Branch Drive. Depth 698 feet. Land Lot 13, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia ABDEC, Inc., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Nursing home (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7
#Z-69-85-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) and A-1 (Apartment) Districts to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 feet on the east side of Stewart Avenue, beginning 0 feet from the north corner of Grant Street. Depth 218 feet. Area 14,258. swuare feet. Land Lot 90, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia, Carrie Blake, OiJner C. M. McChesney,- Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station WARD 4 (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) '^fiwn'f ii
ZONING •COl'lMITTEE AGENDA Page 3 July 24, 1969
#Z-69-83-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 1955 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, fronting 260.7 feet on the north side of Campbellton Road, beginning 0 feet from the northeast corner of Honeysuckle Lane. Depth 212.1 feet. Area approximately 66,000 square feet. Land Lot 168, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Perry Boulevard, Inc., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7
#Z-69-94-S - An Ordinance to rezone from C-L (Commercial-Limited) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet from the east corner of Max^^ell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Area 33,000+-square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Ovjner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7
#U-69-33-S - An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Car Wash and Service Station, to.be located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet east from the corner of MaOTjell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash & Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7
#Z-69-96-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side of Fairburn Road, beginning 720 feet from the,south .corner of,Garrison Drive. Depth 800+ feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land Lot 8, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. D. E. Norris, Owner E. Lane Brown-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 7 WPKf
'mmm - -- AGENDA ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY-JOIOT PLANNING BOARD
Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969 Coinmittee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M.
#Z-69-154-N An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District property located at 1265 BOULDERCREST DRIVE, S.E.. fronting 231 feet on the West side of Bouldercrest Drive, beginning 175 feet from the northwest corner of Eastland Road. Depth 175 feet. Area 40,425 square feet. Land Lot 143, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Alford M. Williams & Ellis A. Maloof, Owner Ellis A. Maloof, Applicant Proposed Use - Foor store & dry cleaners WARD 2
#U-69-68-N An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Church to be located at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVENUE, N.E., front ing 182 feet on the south side of Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. beginning 0 feet east from the corner of Springdale Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District DeKabl County, Georgia. Elmer D. Lilley, Owner Church of God of Prophecy, Applicant Proposed Use - Church WARD 2
#U-69-65-N An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dental Frater nity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON AVENUE N.E.,fronting 152.4 feet on the south side cf Ponce de Leon Avenue, beginning 170 feet west from the corner of Springdale Road. Depth 220 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., 0\raer Clifford Oxford, Applicant Proposed Use - Dental Fraternity-Boarding House WARD 2
An Ordinance to rezone from A-2 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District property located at 493,497, 503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298,302,304 MACY.ENZIE. fronting 180 feet on the south side of East Avenue, beginning 210 feet from the southeast corner of Boulevard. Depth 30.5 feet. Area 1.30 acres. Land Lot 46, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Caduceus Properties, Owner Carl Cofer, Applicant Proposed Use - Parking Lot WARD 6
.J ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12,1969 - Papi.e 2
#U-69-66-C. - An Application for a Special Use Permit for an Apartment above a store, to be located at 979 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E. fronting 45 feet on the easterly side of Piedmont Avenue, N.E., beginning 92.8 feet southwest from the corner of Tenth Street, N.E. Depth 175 feet. Land Lot 106, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Augusto Silva, CKmer-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartment WARD 5
y>U-69-69-C - An Application for a Special Use Permit for Parking to be located at 1230 & 1236 PIEDMONT AVENUE. N.E..fronting 236.7 feet on the northwest side of Piedmont Avenue, be ginning 250.5 feet southwest from*the corner of South Prado. Depth approximately 160 feet. Land Lot 55, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Morton Realty Company, O^^ner,Applicant Proposed Use - Parking WARD 5
#Z-69-174-N - An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to i O-I (Office-Institutional) District, property located at I 3783 ROSWELL ROAD, N.E., fronting 202 feet on the east side of Roswell Road, N.E., beginning 2,257.5 feet form I the northeast corner of Ivy Road. Depth 835 feet. Area 70,700 square feet. Land Lot 97, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Apartments WARD 8
#Z-69-l83-N - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2114 thru 2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, fronting 633 feet on the south side of DeFoors Ferry Road, beginning 698 feet from the northwest corner of Collier Road. Depth 422 feet. Area 174,428 square feet. Land Lots 185,186,&194, 17th District Fulton County, Georgia. H.W. Dunn, et al. Owner Initiated by Alderman G. Everett Millican Proposed Use - Service Station/Retail Uses WARD 3
#Z-69-169-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 2905 SPRING DALE ROAD, fronting 206 feet on the west side of Springdale Road, beginning 990.7 feet from the southwest corner of S. Fredell Circle. Depth 665 feet. Area 3.7 acres. Land Lot 100, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. William H. Cook, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 4 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD , Wednesday. November 12, 1969 - Pa^e 3
i #Z-69-175-C - An Ordinance to rezontS from R-9 (Townhouse) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at PEYTON ROAD, fronting 325.0 feet on the east side of Peyton Road, beginning 340 feet from the southeast corner of I Gordon Road. Depth 165.8 feet. Area 1.265+ acres. Land Lot 205, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Peyton Center, Inc., Owner - Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7
#Z-69-176-C - An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to A-L (Apartment-Limited) District, property located at LYN- HURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lyn- : hurst Drive, beginning 595.9 feet from the northwest corner of Hiawasee Drive. Depth 1,485+ feet. Area 22.72 acres. Land Lot 236, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. R.T. Griffith, Owner - Applicant : Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 j #Z-69-171-C - An Ordinance to rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to I A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335 & 3401 i SCOTT ST., S.W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of I ■ Scott Street, beginning 0 feet from the northeast corner I of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land i Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Therori & Jackie Bolton, Owner Theron Bolton, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7
#Z-69-180-C - An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at SEWELL ROAD S.W.. fronting 570.2 feet on the north side of Sewell Road, beginning 1450 feet from the northeast corner of Fairburn Road. Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Blaclock Machinery, Owner Thornton Properties, Inc., Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7
#Z-69-178-S - An Ordinance to rezone from A-l-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2440 FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W.. fronting 60 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road. S.W., beginning 1049 feet from the south east corner of Campbellton Road, S.W., Depth 792 feet. Area 4 acres. Land Lot 5, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Maude H. Waits, Owner David D. Warren, Applicant Proposed Use - Office Building WARD 7 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Pa^e 4
#Z-69-170-C An Ordinance to rezone for R-3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S,W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adams- ville Drive, beginning 152 feet from the southwest corner of Gordon Road. Depth 197 feet. Area 25,672 square feet. Land Lot 14, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. J.I. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7
#Z-69-177-C An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN ROAD. N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fair- burn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres. Land Lot 243, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Rosa G. Washington, Owner King & Spalding, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7
#U-69-67-C An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care Center to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50 feet on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet north from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet . Land Lot 208, 14th District, Pulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Day Care Center WARD 3
#Z-69-179-C An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2138,2098 & 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on the south side of Bankhead Highway, beginning 0 & 330 feet from the southeast corner of Alta Place. Depth 243 feet. Area 50,544 square feet. Land Lot 176, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Initiated by Zoning Committee Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 3 CITY OK ATLANTA.
May 29, 1969 CITY HALL Atlanta,ga. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
Mr. Johnny Robinson Community Development Coordinator Mayor's Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Johnny:
Certification of Atlanta's Workable Program for Community Improvement expires on October I, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that we make our submission by August I, 60 days in advance of the expiration dote. Lost year, we made our submission on time; we would like to repeat the performance this year.
We are enclosing a copy of the newly revised Workable Program for Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the Workable Program that pertain to your operation. Please note the changed requirements in the HUD Handbook. All Workable Program certifications have been extended over a two-year period. The City of Atlanta will not submit another Workable Program until 1971. Therefore, we ask that you moke sure you maintain the required data pertaining to your department on a two-year basis.
The reporting period for the June 31 Workable Program for this year is March 31, 1968 to June I, 1969. The Planning Department will be glad to assist you in any way possible to get the work done on time. At least a month's time is needed by us for assembling exhibits, typing and reproducing and generally tying up loose ends. Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 16.
Sincerely yours.
Collier B. Gladin Planning Director
CBG/bIs
Enclosure
tltWim RHA 7 00.1
WORKABLE PROGRAM
FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
October 1960
A HUD HANDBOOK
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410 PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK
Ihis Handbook sets forth a new approach and revised requirements to guide localities that are carrying out a Workable Program for Community Improvement.
It represents the first major revision of the Workable Program proce dures since enactment of the statutory provision in 195^.
We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the re vision. One is to respond to the many changes that have taken place in o\rr iirban areas over the years. Another is to ensure that our requirements for the Workable Program are focused on performance by localities in dealing with the problem of slums and blightr--not just on compliance with operational procedures. Above all, the purpose is to give local communities both flexibility and the responsibility to develop effective programs to achieve the objectives of the statute in light of the particular nature of problems and conditions existing in each locality.
Hie substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current sub stantive requirements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The intro duction of a performance-oriented approach hopefully will result in a more effective attack on the major problems facing the community.
I am confident that, after more than a decade of experience with the Workable Program, the Federal-local partnership has the maturity to operate effectively under the new approach of this Handbook and thereby we can make more meaningful progress toward overcoming the urgent problems facing our cities and towns today.
Robert C. Weaver Secretary
11/68
ilAl I ittlillli I I 1||M.-Iit fiiiiniiiiiiniliit I- ■i ii'lrr iniiiil ii'i unmf ■ inraiMlHiii It i i i i i • WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
FOREWORD
This Handbook sets forth revised policies, requirements, and procedures for communities required to carry out a Workable Program for Community Improvement in connection with the use of certain Departmental housing and renewal programs to help overcome problems of slums and blight. ■Workable Program Guides containing illustrative and advisory information will be issued to supplement this Handbook.
The revised policies and requirements set forth herein are effective upon issuance of this Handbook. Those communities which already have submitted or have substantially completed documentation in support of an application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program need not revise the material. However, communities may use the revised forms described in this Handbook immediately. After March 31, 1969, all applications for certification or recertification of a Work able Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and requirements. The primary objective of the revision is to provide a flexible and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demon strate reasonable continuing progress toward- achieving the goals sought by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those estab lished by the community to implement them. The revision also modifies reporting and documentation requirements and provides new criteria for evaluating community performance. The revised Workable Program concentrates on four essential areas: a. The adoption and enforcement of housing, building, and related code s. b. The establishment of an effective action-oriented planning and programming process. The developnent of programs to meet low- and moderate-income housing needs and to meet relocation needs of families, individuals, and business concerns displaced by governmental action.
3
11 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
d. The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUD- assisted housing and renewal programs.
The intent of this Handbook is to strengthen the Workable Program as a flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessen ing of effort by communities which have been participating under previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that communities will make greater progress toward achieving the objectives of the statute with the increased flexibility provided by the Handbook to concentrate local efforts and tailor specific needs and problems facing the community. Applications for certification in accordance with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an overall level of effort below that made in the past, will not be acceptable.
Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be effec tive for two years. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary by HUD Regional Office staff midway through the certification period to provide advice and technical assistance.
HUD-assisted programs to which the Workable Program applies are listed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. A community intending to make application for financial assistance under any of these programs should become familiar with the policies and requirements set forth in this Handbook. An understanding of these policies and requirements will facilitate the preparation of the application for certification or recertification of the community's Workable Program and thus help to expedite the process ing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs.
10/68 111 HUD REGIONAL OFFICES
REGIONAL ADDRESS AND GENERAL REGION ADMINISTRATOR TELEPHONE NUMBER JURISDICTIONAL AREA
I Judah Gribetz 26 Federal Plaza, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, N.Y. 10007 New Har^jshire, New York, Rhode- Area Code 212 261|-8o68 Island, Vermont
n Warren P. Phelan Widener Bldg., 1339 Chest Delaware, District of Col+imbia, nut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 19107 Virginia, West Virginia Area Code 215 597-2560
s: in Edward H. Baxter Peachtree-Seventh Bldg,, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Q Atlanta, Ga. 30323 Kentucky, Mississippi, North Area Code ItOlj. 526-5585 Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee •t) IV Francis D. FLsher 360 North Michigan Ave,, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, o Chicago, III. 60601 Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Q Area Code 312 353-5680 Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
V W.W. Collins Federal Office Bldg., 819 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, s
Taylor St., Fort Worth, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, O Texas 76102 Oklahoma, Texas o Area Code 817 33U-2867
H VI Robert B. Pitts li50 Golden Gate Ave., Post Alaska, Arizona, California, KJ Office Box 36003, San Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Francisco, Calif. 9lil02 Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Area Code 1^15 556-1+752 Wyoming
H VII Jose E, Febres-Silva Post Office Box 3869, GPO, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands O San Juan, P.R. 00936 O (Dial Long Distance Operator) 767-1515
• « WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
FOREWORD
HUD REGIONAL OFFICES
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENT Paragraph
1. Statutory Provision
2. Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision
3. Summary of Workable Program Requirements
Local Administrative Requirements
5. HUD-Assisted Programs for Which Workable Program Is A Requirement
CHAPTER 2. GUIDELiNES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS
1. General Principles of Administration
2. Requirements for Application Content
3. ■ Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Appli cation
U. Basis for Determining Acceptability
CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCE DURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
1. Filing of Application for Certification
2. Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program
3. Notification of Approval or Disapproval.
U. Certification Period
5, Certification Lapse
6. Technical Assistance to Communities
V 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1 J
Paragraph
7. Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal Requirements
8. Availability of Workable' Program as Public Doexunent
9. Guides
CHAPTER k. CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
1. Statutory Provision
2. Requirements for Code Adoption
3. Rehabilitation Standards
h. Requirements for Code Enforcement
5. Examples of Priority Areas
6. Considerations Related to 'Code Enforcement
* CHAPTER 5. PLANNING AHD PROGRAMMING
1. Planning and Programming Objectives
2. Comprehensive Planning Requirements
3. Programming Requirements
k. Characteristics of Planning Process
5. Summary
CHAPTER 6. HOUSING AND RELOCATION
1. General Provisions
2. Relocation Requirements
3. Housing Requirements
1^. Criteria for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 7. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1. Requirements for Citizen Involvement 3
11/68 vi WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
Paragraph
2. Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement
3. Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities
h. Criteria for Evaluation of Applications
CHAPTER 8. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS TRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
1. General Provisions
2. Special Provisions
3. Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable Program Application
CHAPTER 9. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS TRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS
1. General Provisions,
2. Special Objectives
3. General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Applications
k. Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement
5. Planning Provisions
6. Housing and Relocation Provisions
7. Citizen Involvement Provisions
vix 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS
1. STATUTORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 19^+9, as amended, requires as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following:
". . . a workable program for community improvement (which shall include an official plan of action, as it exists from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem of urban slums and blight within the community and for the establishment and preservation of a well-planned community with well-organized environment for adequate family life) for utilizing appropriate private and public resources to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of slums and urban blight, to encourage needed virban rehabilitation, to provide for redevelopment of blighted, deteriorated, or slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activi ties or other feasible community activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a program."
The statute also requires the adoption and effective enforcement of a minimum standards housing code, as described in Chapter 1+. In addition to the Workable Program requirements contained herein, communities are advised that various HUD-assistance programs may contain additional- separate requirements tailored to meet specific program needs (e.g. relocation requirements of the urban renewal program, general planning requirements for water and sewer, or open space land grants). See Chapter 3, paragraph 7, for further information.
BASIC PURPOSE OF STATUTORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desir ing to utilize funds for renewal and housing programs understand the array of forces that create slums and blight and are willing to recognize and take the steps within their power to prevent and overcome urban blight.
GSie Workable Program is based on recognition that the Federal and local relationship is one of partnership in the task, and that Federal funds for renewal and housing projectecannot, by them selves, be effective \niless localities exercise the full range of their powers in community efforts on a sustained and coordinated basis to the objective of preventing and eradicating slums and blight.
SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. The specific require ments of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework
Page 1 11/63 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 1
for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the follow ing four areas: a. Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, build ing, and related codes, and development of an effective code enforcement program which is at least adequate to deal with areas having high priority need for enforcement, including both blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighbor hoods, and which is geared toward eventual community-wide compliance with such codes.
* Planning and Programming. The establishment of a continuing public planning and programming process which develops action programs within a comprehensive planning framework for over coming the major physical, social, and economic problems related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and for establishing and preserving a well-planned community with suitable living environment for family life. c. Housing and Relocation. The development of a centralized or coordinated program for assisting in the relocation of all persons and business concerns displaced by public action in the community and the development of a progr m to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-incouie families on the basis of equal opportunity. Citizen Involvement. The establishment of programs designed to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in planning and carrying out HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program. A detailed explanation of the policies and requirements for each of the above four areas is set forth in subsequent chapters of this Handbook. LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. In carrying out Workable Program responsibilities, many different local agencies and offices will necessarily be involved, together with various public and private institutions, organizations, and individuals. For example, building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizations, private builders and developers may be involved to proyide the wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program objectives. While no specific- administrative structure is required by the Workable Program, a community will be expected to meet the general requirement for establishment of an administrative mechanism 3 11/68 Page 2 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 1
responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program activities.
5. HUD-ASSISTED PROGRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRAM IS A REQUIREMENT
a. Urban Renewal Program
b. Neighborhood Development Program
0. Concentrated Code Enforcement Program
d. Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas
e. Demolition Grant Program
f. Community Renewal Program
g. General Neighborhood Renewal Plan
h. Rehabilitation loans and grants in urban renewal and concen trated code enforcement areas and in other than urban renewal or concentrated code enforcement areas assisted under the provision of Sec. 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1).
i. Low-Rent Housing Program, except for Section .23, Short Term Leased Housing.
Mortgage insurance \mder FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas.
k. Mortgage insurance under FHA 221(d)(3) at market or below- market interest rate projects for low- and moderate-income families.
1. Rent Supplement Projects under Sec. 221(d)(3) for low-income families, with certain exceptions.
Page 3 1^/ 338-597 O - 69 - 2
I tlmiiliirtikTWK WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS
1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applica tions will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions, backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the particular community. In view of the difficulty of establishing predetermined standards of compliance having equal applicability to all comm\inities throughout the nation, the Department's review and determination will be guided by the statutory requirements, the adequacy of the community's proposed effort as measured against the magnitude of the job to be done, and the constraints of available FedereO, State, and local resources. A second major consideration governing the evaluation of application for recertification will be evidence of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting the statutory goals and objectives and those set forth by the community.
2. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLIgATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the locality's program, and it is the responsibility of the locality to establish goals, action programs, and timetables for accomplish ment in each of the fotar elements discussed in subsequent chapters. The goals, action programs, and timetables must be approved by the Department, except where otherwise indicated in Chapter 5> para graph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality's responsibility to develop its own program tailored to its own needs and abilities rather than on complying with specific Departmental requirements, the community's application must contain sufficient evidence and detail to permit an objective basis for review and eval\iation. Therefore, the application must clearly and specifically describe what the community intends to do during the next certification period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When apply ing for recertification, the application must also clearly describe what steps the community took in the last period, in order to provide a basis for measurement of the community's continuing progress toward meeting the agreed-upon goals and objectives. In developing its "work program" in each of the four elements for the next certification period, the community must also show how the proposed activities are related to an analysis of the problems or needs, and to longer-range targets for accomplishment. For example, in developing a program to meet the requirement of Chapter 6 to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families, the application should show the relationship of its proposed program and timetables to an analysis of needs in the community and to its longer-range goals or targets for expansion of such supply. The questions included in Application Form 108l are designed to elicit the information and evidence required to provide a reasonable basis for approving or disapproving the community's Workable Program Application.
Page 1 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1 ' J CHAPTER 2
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In re viewing a community's application for certification or recertifi- cation of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be based on the following factors: Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the commimity's analysis of the problems and needs where required by the Workable Program elements. Long-Range Goals. Adequacy and reasonableness of the long- range goals and targets for accomplishment proposed by the community for overcoming such problems.
Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific actions and time tables proposed to be taken by the community during the next period of certification to deal with the problems identified, in light of available resources and the magnitude of the problems. Progress. Demonstration of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community. BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY. The acceptability of a com munity's initial application for certification will be based on the adequacy of the problem or need analysis in each of the elements, the extent to which longer-range goals or targets have been identified in relation to need, and the adequacy of the pro posed action programs, in light of both need and available resources. The acceptability of an application for recertification ^111 Le based on the performance of the community in meeting the goals, targets, and timetables agreed to at the last certification, as well as on the extent to which the proposed level of effort represents continuing progress from the last period toward meeting its longer-range targets. When unexpected developnents or changed conditions prevent a community from meeting its agreed-to objec tives and timetables, the application for recertification must include a detailed explanation of the reasons.
3 10/68 Page 2
J WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CMPTER 3
CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION. Form HUD-lOSl is to be used by the community to apply for certification or recertifica- tion of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the prepara tion of format and content will obviate the need for correspondence with the community and thus help to expedite the review and evaluation of the application and its approval.
An original and three copies of Form HUD-lOSl are to be submitted to the appropriate HUD Regional Office. An application for recertification should be submitted at least 60 days prior to expiration of the commxinity's current Workable Program certifica tion.
A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the prepara tion of the required Form 108l should communicate with the HUD Regional Office.
GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROGRAM. Before being submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certifica tion and recertification on Form HUD-lOSl must be approved by the executive head and the governing body of the community.
NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. The HUD Regional Office will advise the applicant community of approval or disapproval of the Workable Program application for certification.
a. Reasons for Disapproval or Conditional Approval. Applications may' be disapproved or conditionally approved for either of two reasons listed below; an explanation of the basis for such action will be provided to the community.
(1) Failure by the community to carry out the plan of action and timetable it proposed for the last certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be advised of the actions it must take to carry out the plans or steps it initially proposed but did not take and did not provide justification for not taking.
(2) Inadequacy of plans, programs, and timetables-proposed by the community for the next certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be informed of the nature of
Page 1 10/68
itisim WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 o CHAPTER 3
the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and will be requested to submit additional information needed to remedy such inadequacies. h. Time Limit. Applications that are conditionally approved will provide a reasonable, definite time limit for accomplishment of required actions. In the event of a conditional approval, applications for financial assistance under the applicable HUD programs will be processed, but final approvals will be with held \uitil the Workable Program is fully approved. (Once a community's application is approved, no further requirements will be imposed dixring the period of certification.)
CERTIFICATION PERIOD. All Workable Program certifications are for a two-year period. If certification of a Workable Program has expired, the execution of contracts for assistance is precluded with respect to the applicable programs listed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5- Certification is deemed not to expire, however, but rather to continue in effect for the following purposes:
a. To provide Federal assistance under Title 1 of the Housing Act of I9I+9 for any urban project in the locality with respect to which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the ex piration date. To provide Federal assistance \inder the United States Housing Act of 1937 for any low-rent public housing being undertaken by the locality with respect to which a contract for annual contributions or capital grant is executed prior to the ex piration date.
To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to prop erty in the locality situated in:
(1) The area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date. or
(2) Any urban renewal area not involving Federal aid under Title 1 of the Housing Act of 19^9 respecting which prior to the expiration date the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has certified that he has approved the urban renewal plan for the area, that such plan conforms to the general plan for the locality as a whole, and that there exist the necessary authority and financial capacity to ensure the completion of such urban renewal plan. D
10/68 Page 2
L iiiiin iiiiiyinfiiA}lf1fi*>i)riiiiiiii i.-j WORKABLE EROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY TMFROVHLENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 3
d. To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality for which a pre-application analysis has been made by the Federal Housing Administration and it has agreed in writing to accept a formal application prior to the expiration date, or located in the area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date.
CERTIFICATION LAPSE. Where a Workable Program certification has expired and a lapse has occurred, the community will be required to show the progress made in meeting Workable Program requirements not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in effect, but also during the lapsed period. Thus, it is important that a coram\inity anticipate the expiration date and initiate the actions necessary to prepare an application for recertification sufficiently in advance of this dat so that lapse may be avoided.
■TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES. In accordance with Section 101(d) of the Housing Act of 19^9} as amended, the Department will endeavor to the maximum extent possible, to assist communities in meeting their Workable Program objectives. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessapy midway through the period of certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the extent resources permit to provide consultation, advice, and technical assistance.
7. RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS. Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should be aware of the following statutory requirements:
a. No loan or grant contract may be entered into for an urban renewal project unless the Workable Program "is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project, and such project is in accord with the program."
The plan for an urban renewal project must "conform to the general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable Program . . ."
c. In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans, and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must "give consideration to the extent to which appropriate local public bodies have undertaken positive programs (through the adoption, modernization, administration, and enforcement of housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes, and regulations . . .) for (l) preventing the spread or recurrence
Page 3 10/68
'ii I lit^iiiil'ii WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR CONtt-WNITY IMPROVEMENT
\ RHA 7100.1 ) CHAPTER 3
in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encour- 3-SinS housing cost reductions through the use of appropriate new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency in residential construction, and the elimination of restric tive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs." d. HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighbor hood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a certified Workable Program which is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the proposed NDP activities and such activities are in accord with the Workable Program. Communities are advised that because of the above statutory pro visions, requirements for urban renewal assistance may differ from those necessary for Workable Program certification purposes in the following ways: Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subpara- graphs a. and d., above, a community intending to apply for urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies undertaken in connection with the planning and programming re quirement described in Chapter, 5 are of sufficient scope and quality to provide a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project or NDP activities. In general, the studies carried out under the Workable Program should be adequate to determine that the area is sufficiently blighted or deteriorated to qualify for an urban renewal or NDP program. Information should be included to illustrate both building and environmental deficiencies, such as overcrowded conditions, excessive densities, and so forth. For further information on urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Require ments. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its' Workable Program submission with other related studies having a bearing, such as a Community Renewal Program, General Neighbor hood Renewal Program, or other similar studies. b. Renewal Plans. With respect to b., above, the Urban Renewal Handbook sets forth the following minimum elements of a general plan: land use plan, thoroughfare plan, community facilities plan, public improvements program, zoning ordinance and map and subdivision regulations. The preparation of such plans (except for a zoning ordinance or other comparable memo for guiding land usage) is not a prerequisite to the approval of the Workable Program, though many communities may find the prepara- "X of them helpful in the development of general plans to guide J
10/68 Page k WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 3
community growth and development, which is a Workable Program requirement described in Chapter 5- In addition, for purposes of approving specific urban renewal projects, a greater degree of planning completion may be required than would be necessary for Workable Program purposes, especially in smaller communi ties and others seeking initial certification or recertifica- tion.
c. Codes. With respect to c., above, a community intending to apply for ■urban renewal assistance is advised that approval of the housing, building, and other code requirements of the Workable Program will constitute compliance for urban, renewal purposes with Section lOl(a) of the Housing Act of 19^9} a-nd no additional information will be required for that purpose.
8. AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since the Workable Program is a public document, it must be made available for public perusal and examination. At their request, copies should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and organizations which should be encouraged to participate in the development and implementation of the Workable Program.
9. GUIDES. Supplementary guides will be issued to provide communities with advice and illustrations in connection with carrying out the Workable Program, including description of the scope and content of comprehensive planning programs, ways of organizing and carrying out effective relocation and code enforcement programs, and means for enco^uraging and developing citizen involvement. Pending issu ance of the Guides, questions and requests for technical assistance should be directed to the Regional Office.
Page 5 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMFROVFMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 7. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
1. REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. A guiding principle of De partmental policy is to insure that citizens have the opportunity to participate in policies and prograijis which affect their welfare. Therefore, the Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides opportunities for citizens, including those who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all HUD assisted programs for which a Workable Program is a require ment, and in the community's plan to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. (See Chapter 1, paragraph 5 for list of applicable HUD programs.) The community will also be expected to show what progress has been made during each certification period to achieve an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement.
2. PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The growing com plexity of urban development and government organization make it essential that widespread opportunities for citizen involvement be created, including opportunities for poor and minority groups, for many reasons. In some cases, existing local institutions seem unable to identify the serious problems of many citizens, as the citizens define them. In turn, the people may feel cut off from their public representatives', and lack understanding of what government is doing to and for them. At the same time, traditional acts of participation--voting, attendance at meetings, letters to Congressmen--are frequently ineffective in dealing with the immedi ate problems raised by increasingly large and complex programs having direct impact on peoples' lives. For these reasons, new forms of collaborative relationships between citizens and govern ment, new means for participation in the decision-making process, need to be developed. Recognizing the need for experimentation and innovation, the Workable Program does not contain any specific re quirements for the form that citizen participation must take. Ihe choice of mechanisms depends upon the needs of the particular com munity and the structure of the local government. However, there are certain principles and objectives which should underlie the community's effort. One is that the community's responsibility does not end with the establishment of a particular mechanism or set of mechanisms. The Workable Program requires continuing effort on the part of the community to improve and expand the opportuni ties for creative forms of participation and collaboration that both ens\ire representation by poor and minority groups, as well as enable government to take effective, purposeful, and expert action to deal with the problems and needs facing the community. It is essential that the participation be satisfying, rewarding, and not frustrating if it is to achieve the basic objective of creating and sustaining a voluntary union and mutual trust between govern- and its citizens.
11/68 338-597 0 - 60 -3
I,.' WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 7
3. EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN IWOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES. It is important that the community develop specific plans for achieving and maintaining adequate and effective citizen involvement in the programs covered. A community may establish a new community-wide advisory committee embracing all major interests^ including the poor and members of minority groups or may create several new special-purpose groups, or may make better utilization of existing organizations. Communi ties which already have established ef.fective citizen advisory committees for Workable Program purposes are encouraged to retain them and improve their effectiveness. Communities participating «■ in the Model Cities program or other programs involving a high degree of citizen participation are encouraged to coordinate the citizen involvement activities under the Workable Program with the citizen participation requirements of these programs, where applicable. In addition to establishing appropriate organiza tional means for citizen involvement, a community may wish to take such steps as the following in order- to further the objectives of this element:
a. The development of specific functions for citizen committees, such as having them hold public hearings, prepare comments on Workable Program applications, evaluate project plans, conduct interviews and surveys of neighborhood residents' views, etc.
b. The development of specific methods by which the community can establish a basis for insuring there will be fair and reason able representativeness of advisory committees participating in the Workable Program. For example, one method by which to compose a community-wide advisory committee might be to choose representatives in equal proportions, from private neighborhood groups, government program-connected advisory groups, and civic groups. y c. The establishment of a planning group to help develop new ideas and techniques for generating greater involvement among poor and disadvantaged groups.
d. The provision of funds and technical assistance to neighborhood and other advisory groups so they may become better informed and equipped to deal with complex redevelopment problems.
e. The assignment of specific activities in HUD-assisted projects to designated neighborhood groups, such as evaluating site and design considerations, establishing information centers, and making recommendations with respect to housing project regula tions. h. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS. To provide a basis for evaluating the citizen involvement element of Workable Program |
11/68 Page 2
^ -i WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
RHA 7100.1
CHAPTER 7
applications and for determining the adequacy of such involvement, the community will be expected to submit the following kinds of information:
A description of the arrangements or working relationships established to provide citizen groups with opportunities for access to the decision-making pro.cess with respect to the re lated HUD-assisted projects related to the Workable Program.
A description of the nature and range of issues with which the participating groups and individuals have dealt, the recom mendations subsequently made, and the general results and accomplishments derived from such involvement.
c. A description of the specific steps the community took in the preceding period and proposes to take in the next certification period to achieve or maintain an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement, including plans for providing suffi cient information, technical assistance, and access to de- cision-making.
Page 3 10/68 ir ■ ' I HUD-I081 (11-68)
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to expand, opportunities for citizens, especially those who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing pro grams. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discre tion of each community, but the community must demonstrate in its Workable Program submis sion that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely informa tion, and necessary technical assistance to participating groups and individuals in programs covered.
1. (a) Identify the groups participating in the HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program and in the community's program to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing.
(b) Describe the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, housing) that are participating, and the constit uency represented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public housing residents).
- 18 - HUD-1081 (11-63)
(c) Describe what particular HUD-assisted programs and projects such groups are participating in,
(d) Describe efforts to achieve coordination among citizen participation structures located in the same area or having similar program interests.
- 19 -
i Tt— HUD-1081 (11-68)
2. Describe the arrangements or working relationships set up to provide groups and individuals opportunities for access to and participation in decision-making in the applicable llUD-assisted programs.
3. Describe the steps which have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating groups and individuals sufficient information and technical assistance.
4. Describe the nature and range of issues relating to the applicable programs with which participating groups and individuals have dealt; the recommendations subsequently made; and the specific results and accom plishments of the participation.
20 -
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 196S O - 327-649 CITY OF ATLANTA
May 30, 1969 CITYHAULi ATLANTA,GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Johnny Robinson
FROM: Cc
SUBJECT: Summer Program '69
Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth.
CG/ip ■ FulDING OF URBAN rUSNEI'JAL AND
1®;IGHBOSKOOD DKYELOPI'StN: PROGBiJ'I
PROJECTS
APRIL 29, 1969" The City of Atlanta is presently engaged i.n eight Urban Renewal Projects
and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in
planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the
Federal Government, The funding arrangement calls for a contribution
equal to one-third of the Net Project costs from the City with the re
maining two-thirds being supplied by rhe Federal Government, '
The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash
grants-5.n-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work,
project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others
such as credits from construction of public housings. At present, the
eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are sumraarized as follows: ' <
Net Project Costs $60 million^ Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million
This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renewal prograat has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash grants-in-aid. The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays encountered in the closing out of these projects, some of V7hich date back into the 1950's. •
The cash used for these projects has come frora money set aside in the 1957 and 1953 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3,2 million. There fore, we have, at present, $2,1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source. Of this amount, $1,7 is presently expected to be needed
lof this amount $4,5 million or 7%7, has been incurred as interest charges, to meet the cash requirements of the Eedford-Pine Neighborhood Development
Program Project in 1970.
The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of
total erpenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the
follovjing forms. '
School $lle4 million Section 107^ & Special Credits 1,3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks .7 million Water Improvement ,6 million Sewer Improvements ,6 million Special Facilities .3 million Traffic Improvements . ,1 million Other .3 million
$20.0 million
Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu tions (94.8% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban
Renev7al activities are:
1. Butler Street
A. Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has
been delaying the close of this project, but should be under
contract by August of 1969.
2« Rawson - Washington
A. Neighborhood Facilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,OCO will be an eligible project cost. This project is at present unfunded v/ith the only
possible source of funds being through Model Cities. It is
presently planned for the City to purchase the land from the
Housing Authori.ty and hold this until a deterninati.on is made
2creditR resultlne from the construction of Public Housing. regarding the use of Model Cities funds.
B. Park v;ith an estimated cost of $240,000 of V7hich $33,000
will be eligible costs. No source of funding is presently
ascertai-nable,
3. Pvockdale
A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and
expected to be under contract by August of 1969.
B. An expansion of the existing elementary school vjith an esti
mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded.
j Co Park with an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently
unfunded.
4. Thomasville
A. Elementary school with $1.5 million estimated cost and ex
pected to be under contract by Augpust, 1969.
B. Park V7ith estimated cost of $126,000 V7hich is at present
unfunded.
C. Tvd primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and
a middle school vjith an estimated cost of $2 million are un
funded and no source is seen until at least June of 1971.
The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait until funding became available before completing it. Under the terras of an NDP agreement, the City must have corapleted or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash.
' ' -3- ■ -1.
Our present KDP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve
ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of $10.8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of
$32.4 million.
The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requireraents: Cash Non-Cash Bedford"Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million Model Cities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgevjood ' ,1 million .2 million Vine City .1 million .2 million
$3.4 million $1.9 million
This vjould support a total program of $19.9 m.illion aiid vjould increase
greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi
ficant level of activity.
This means that to support, the fairly light level of activity project'ed for
1970j the City vjill need approximately $1.7 million. If aiiy new areas are added or the level of activity increased this v/ould increase from $2.5 to
$4.0 million for 1970.
The possible sources of funds include: 1. General Funds - This source is already under considerable pressure and no relief is presently anticipated. ' 2. The G. 0. Bonds already approved, for issue in the amount of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood Development ProgitamJS fiom these bonds would require the use of almost this entire amount every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles. 3. Another possibility is a special Neighborhood Development Program
General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 mi.llion per year. This approach is natAirally subject to the V7r.iras of the .public, and, there
fore, of uncertain dependability. 4. Perhaps the best method V70uld be through the obtaining of a new revenue
source, by state approval, such as a sales tax or a payroll tax of which a
certain portion V70uld be earmarked for Neighborhocd Development Programs. Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads with the state ane may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source.
Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the needed funds, it is imperative, if the City of Atlanta is to maintain its progressive image and to continue its draraatic developvaent, that a soujrce be foundj because the continuation of a significamt program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City,
-5- AGENDA
Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Atlanta Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Atlanta Housing Code Division of the Department of Buildings
Held: Committee Room #1 10:00-10:30 a.m., March 12, 1968
I. Jim Smith - Introduction of Mee'"ing, Introduction of Speakers
II. Collier Gladin - Importance of Survey to City of Atlanta, Planning Department, Housing Code Division. Responsibility of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, Introduction of Planning Department Contact Person (Meyers).
HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance Program, to Workable Prograni to other Cities. . .. .
In attendance:
J. S. Buchanan Tom Ficht Harold Taylor
IV. Questions and Ansvyers AGENDA
Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings
Held: Office of Collier Gladin 10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968
Chairman: Helen Meyers
Discussion Topics:
1. Evaluation of Atlanta Survey techniques and procedures by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta Housing Authority.
2. Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal program planning. 3. Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards and .definitions for structural evaluation and rating. 4. Organizing a committee or other mechanism from the Department of Housing & Urban Development, Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department, Housing Code Division to work on the above. ATTENDANCE SHEET
NAME
Collier Gladin - Planning Dept. W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing &: Urban Development Harold Taylor - Dept. of Housing &_Urban Development Wally Screws - Atlanta Housing Authority Jim Smith - Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings George Aldridge - Planning Department John Watson - Planning Department Helen Meyers - Planning Department Jack Linville - Planning Department Wallace Edson - Housing Code Division Robert Tipton - Housing Code Division 10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division FU1®ING OF UPj3Ai\ RFNWAL AND
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPIIENT PROC-RAII
PROJECTS
APPJL 29, 1969 The City of Atlanta is presently engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects
and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in
planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the
Federal Government. The funding arrangement calls for a contribution
equal to one-third of the Net Project costs from the City V7ith the re
maining tV7o-thirds being supplied bj' the Federal Goveriment, '
The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash
grants-in-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work,
project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others
such as credits from construction of public housings. At present, the
eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are summarized as
follows:
Net project Costs $60 million^ Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million
This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renev;al
program has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash
grants-in-aid. The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays
encountered in the closing out of these projects, some of V7hich date back
into the 1950's.
The cash used for these projects has come from money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3.2 million. There fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source. Of this amount, $1,7 is presently expected to be needed
lof this amount $4.5 million or 7%% has been incurred as interest charges, to meet the cash requirements of the Bedford-Pine Neighborhood Development
Program Project in 1970.
The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms.
School $llo4 million Section 107 &. Special Credits 1.3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks .7 million Water Improvement .6 million Sewer Improvements ,6 million Special Facilities .3 million Traffj-C Improvements . .1 million Other 2_3 million
$20,0 million
Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu tions (94,87o of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban
Renewal activities are;
1. Butler Street
A, Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has
been delaying the close of this project, but should be under
contract by August of 1969.
2, Rav7son - Washington "
A. Neighborhood Facilities, Building V7ith a total estimated cost
of $1 million of which $150,000 will be an eligible project
cost. This project is at present unfunded with the only
possible source of funds being through Model Cities, It is
presently plannedfor the City to purchase the land from the
Housing Authority and hold this until a determination is made
On*... js ^ t/^ 4- 4 rfF T^nilS'fnP"* regarding the use of Model Cities funds.
B. Park V7ith an estimated cost of $240,000 of v?hich $33,000
will be eligible costs. No source of funding is presently
ascertainable.
3. Rockdale
A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and
expected to be under contract by August of 1959,
B. An expansion of the existing elementary school vjith an esti
mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded.
C. Park v;ith an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently
unfunded.
4. Thomasville
A. Elementary school with $1,5 million estimated cost and ex
pected to be under contract by August, 1969,
B. Park V7ith estimated cost of $126,000 which is at present
unfunded,
C. Tto primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and
a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 million are un
funded and no source is seen until at least June of 1971,
The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end
the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then
wait until funding became available before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash.
-3-
inwhiritr ilflliV Our present NOP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve
ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of
$10»8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of
$32.4 million.
The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements; Cash Non-Cash Bedford-Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million Model Cities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgewood ,1 millicn .2 million Vine City .1 million .2 million
$3,4 million $1.9 million
This would support a total program of $19.9 million and would increase
greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi
ficant level of activity.
This means that to support the fairly light level of activity project'od for
1970j the City vjlll need approximately $1.7 million. If any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this would increase from $2..5 to
$4.0 million for 1970.
The possible sources of funds include:
1. General Funds - This source is already under considerable pressure and no relief is presently anticipated. "
2. The G. 0. Bonds already approved, for issue in the amount of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood Development PrograiriS fmra these bonds would require the use of almost this entire amount every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles.
3. Another possibility is a special Neighborhood Development Program
General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year.
■ This approach is naturally subject to the whims of the public, and, there
fore, of uncertain dependability.
4, Perhaps the best method v7ould be through the obtaining of a new revenue
source, by state approval, such as a sales tax or a payroll tax of which a
certain portion would be earmarked for Neighborhocd Developraent Programs,
Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads
V7ith the stats and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source.
Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the needed funds, it is
imperative, if the City of Atlanta is to mai-ntain its progressive image and
to continue its dramatic development, that a source be found; because the continuation of a significant program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City,
-5- X i l ■ A-- iiT-■ COIMJNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM
City Planning Department City Hall Atlanta, Ga. January, 1968
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION
PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING
PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOAIS & PROGRAM
STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COIffiUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING (1) Discussion Reports (2) Distribution of Reports
ATTACHMENTS
Discussion Reports Chart Report #1 - Problem Analysis, Senile Outlino IMPORTMCE OF ORGMIZATION
If the planniiig of the Model Neighborhood Program is to be successful, it is absolutely essential that all key participants in the program are well organized. This means that the following organizational matters should be accomplished before planning begins, 1. The Model Neighborhood Executive Board should be formed to act as the ultimate authority of the program. It should allow representation from all levels of government - city, county, state, and federal^ residents of the Model Neighborhood areaj and residents of the city-at-large. 2. The Model Neighborhood staff should be formed, including the executive director, the three chief planners and the technical
staff, 3. Stable local organizations which adequately represent the residents of the various neighborhoods in the area should be in operation. While those organizations should be representative ©f the interests of all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they should not be so cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with
the planners. In other words, it will be physically impossible for the planners to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass roets' organizations of the area. This may be necessary for some key issues, but for the most part planners will have to work with a small committee of 10-20 persons if they are to accomplish anything worthwhile. COMMUNITY PiaiTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION'
The Model Neighborhood Program offers an excellent opportunity to bring about basic improvements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta,
The area selected for the program contains all the varied and complicated forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded, substandard housing t© incompatible land use mixtures to poor street conditions and inadequate community facilities to all facets of socio-economic poverty and depid-vation. Most of these conditions have deep roots and are so con55lex and of such a nature that it will take nothing less than a special concentrated long-term effort to eliminate them. So far no major city in the country has been successful in eliminating them.
The Model Neighborhood Program can bring about the special concentrated effort which is needed to alleviate the conditions of the 'Model Neighborhood' area. It is designed to pool the resources of the city, county, state, and federal governments along with those of private interest groups to make a total attack on the serious and widespread problems of the area for a period of several years. The funds it provides will support the program through the planning and implementation stages.
However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is to avoid the mistakes of many previous efforts to help slum residents it is very iiaportant that the program be carefully planned and that local residents be involved throughout all stages of planning. The purpose of this report is to show how coraraiuaity participation can be effectively fitted into the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program.
-2- Hence the nei^borhood groups of the area should be capable of forming such a comnixttee which can work with the planners and relay this work to the 'grass roots' groups. It has been suggested that the steering coininittee of the various neighborhood
groups in the area serve this function.
PROCEDURSS FOR PLANNING
The federal government has set the procedures for the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program, The period allowed for planning is one year, beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program (Nov. 15, 1967 - Novi 15, 1968). During this period the following planning items have to be submitted to the federal government for approval: 1. Problem Analysis, Goals & Program Strategy Statement
2. Five-Year Plan
3. First-Year Action Program U. Planning and Evaluation Program 5. Statement of Administrative Structure for Implementation Of these planning submission requirements, the first one - the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy Statement - It probably the most important, as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effort. It will establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the First- Year Action Prograiri and will initiate the general procedures for community participation in planning. Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the local residents will be involved in plaiuiing.
-3- PROBLEM ANALYSIS. GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STATSi^ENT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING
The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy
is divided into three stages or milestones; Problem Analysis^ Goalsj and
Strategy. It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and
the community will be working closely together in this preparation so that
the best of their ideas will go into the final statement submitted to
HUD.
(1) DISCUSSION REPORTS
The basis of ihe working relationship between the Model Neighborhood
planning staff and community will center enound discussion reports to
cover each milestone: Problemsj Goalsj and Strategy. These reports will
be done by the planning staff and designed to stimulate discussion among the residents. They will not be the final word on anything, but merely
present the information available to the planning staff so as to initiate
community involvement and discussion on the significant planning issues.
The community will be able to criticize, add to and/or subtract from the
reports, For example, the first report will cover the subject: Problem Analysis
and attempt to identify and survey the major conditions and problems ®f
the Model Neighborhood area which Justify treatment. It will:
a. define and document the major conditions and problems as far as
available data will allow and according to following categories:
employraentj housing; schools; recreation; land use; health services; family, legal services; police protection; and other,.
-h- b, present the information in a simple and concise manner so that lay citizens will have a minimum amount of trouble in reading it. c, provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the priority of problems in their coraraunity according to the above categories in (a), d, provide space in which residents can criticize the contents of the report, i.e., redefine problems, reorganize data, contribute
additional ideas, etc.
(2) DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS
The reports are to be distributed to each of the six communicities in the Model Neighborhood area. They will include information on the area as a whole and on the particular community to which it is distributed. It probably will not be feasible to get written responses from all residents of the area. But perhaps certain people from each community could be responsible for surveying the responses of the residents, summarizing them, and writing them down to be returned to the planning
staff. The reports will be allowed to circulate for a maximum period of two weeks. This should give enough time for residents to gather up their written responses to the report. Also during this time it would be desirable to have a general meeting in each community, where residents can freely express their own ideas about the subject matter of the report. After this circulation period which hopefully will bring about fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the community, the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports en Problems, Goals and Strategy which fully incorporate the ideas of
-5- the residents. These reports would then make up the final Problem
Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement,
ATTACmiEMTS
Attached to this report are:
1, a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods
of the discussion reports fit into the work program for the
Problem Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement,
2, a sample outline of Report #1, Problem Analysis,
- 6 -
k..,. DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART
PLANNING ACTIVITY
Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May Milestone Work Tasks 1 2 3 U 12 3 k 123U 123U 123U l) Problem Analysis Goals and Strategy Summary of Tasks
1) Citizen orientation
2) Problem Analysis
3) Goals Development U) Strategy 5) Preparation of Report
a) Problem Analysis Report #1 1) Assemble Available Data
2) Decision on Additional Data Required
3) Gather Additional Data Required
k) Citizen Analysis of Problems 5) Summarize and Analyze 6) Prepare Report
Legend
Deadline for distributing reports to community Circulation period - - - - - Deadline for collection reports frcmi community Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May Miltestone Work Tasks 123U 123U 123U 123U 123U
Summary of Tasks
B) Goals Report #2 1) Document Existing Goals
2) Citizen Goals Setting I 3) Synthesis and Report Preparation
C) Strategy Report #3 1) Develop Program Approach 2) Establish Program Priority 3) Identify Critical Changes Required U) Report Preparation REPORT #1 - PROBLEM ANALYSIS SAMPLE OUTLINE
I. Introdaction A, Purpose of report - to identify and docunient major conditions and problems of area
B, Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six communities
II. Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole
1. Housing 6. Health services 2. Employment 7. Family, legal services 3» Schools 8, Police protection and community U. Recreation relations Land Use 9, Other III. Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Particular Community (e.g. Grant Park) While Grant Park contains all of the probleras affecting the Model Neighborhood areas as a whole, it is especially hardpressed with the following problems.
1. Eii5)loyment 2. Family, legal services IV. Questionnaire: How Do You Rate Your Community? Schools Housing Etc. _good fair poor good fair poor
V. Comments Do you think this report adequately covered the main problems of your neighborhood? 2. What problems do you find not mentioned in the report?
>'•